Students Doubt Evolution in Schools, Teachers “Afraid”

The LA Times recently reported (Testing Darwin’s Teachers) on how students are taking it upon themselves to wedge creationism into the classroom, sometimes with snide comments and sometimes with questions. Oooh, those subversive students.

The Evolutionary cavalry (AAAS) is rushing in to rescue teachers from these subversive students with a 28-page guide (Evolution on the Front Lines, PDF) to teaching the scientific principles behind evolution.

It has also issued talking points to present ‘both sides.’

The annual science teachers` convention — scheduled to be held in Anaheim, Calif., next week — will cover similar ground, with workshops on ‘Teaching Evolution in a Climate of Controversy.’ (Monsters and Critics)

Nothing makes a more convincing argument than interupting teachers with inane questions. Whew. I know I'm not a creationist through and through. Incidentally, when I've been using this same approach at church recently: "Did God really turn people into pillars of salt?" "Do you have any evidence of any of this ridiculous nonsense?" You get the idea.

I live in the greater L.A. area and read the article in full in the Times. I have to say that this stinks. The students described seem to me to be smart-alecks who are intent on disrupting class with wiseacre remarks. If I were a teacher in these classes I send the offending students out of class into detention. They are being taught science not religion, and they are intent on denying the education of all students by their disruption and lack of respect. If parents don't want their kids taught science and, instead, want a fundamentalist christianist "education," they should remove their victims…I mean, children…from public schools and incarcerate them in christianists re-education camps…excuse me, private religious schools. That way, the rest of us could continue our examination of reality while christianists could indulge their penchiant for fantistical stupidity.

I don't know if they are smart alecks or actually just getting pissed off at getting taught evolutionary faith as science. But the fact that less than 50% of the public actually believes in evolution as a credible theory of origins means either that most people are stupid (as evolutionists may think), or that actually, the science is just not that convincing – at the very least, evolutionists aren't making their case to the public. Now, they may argue that it's too complicated for most non-scientists to understand, but people believe that engineering can send people to the moon because it can be proved. Evolution not only has little practical application (except in the mixed up minds of theorists), it is complicated because it does not actually match what we see, so things like our phylogenetic trees are essentially spaghetti, and changing significantly with each new discovery. Hardly confidence building.

Evolutionary theory is science, but people are not convinced for a variety of reasons. Religion is a big one, as conservative evangelicals tend toward a literalist reading of the Bible. Another reason is the lack of understanding science in general and evolution specifically. When so many people claim that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution, I think we can safely say that they have an imperfect view of such matters. On practical applications, disease research comes to mind as a big one. Understanding how a disease mutates and developing vaccines requires understanding the evolution of bacteria, viruses, etc. One area of HIV research is attempting to understand why apes handle the disease better than humans. Genetic studies indicate that our and other animals' genetic code has thousands of viral insertions. One idea behind ape's immune response argues that a version of the virus inserted itself into the chimps' genes, which altered their immune response. A more familiar examle may be the development of sickle cell anemia, which may be a side-effect of evolving resistance to malaria.

Didn't I read somewhere that this sort of wisecracking in the face of overwhelming evidence suggesting evolution's rightness wasn't generated by the kids, but was in fact trained by preachers? Didn't somebody to link to a group that preps kids to ruin science classes by showing off their overall ignorance of the scientific facts that lend themselves to evolution?

But the fact that less than 50% of the public actually believes in evolution as a credible theory of origins Whoa, is that a FACT? I would challenge that… do you have your sources? OK, evolution is testable, and is tested constantly through the scientific method. Hence it is SCIENCE. It is not a perfect theory, but it is being refined. Someone please explain to me how Intelligent Design is testable? Do we look for a tag under our arms that explains that we should be washed in warm water with like colors? How can any "science" starting with a theory (God Exists) and therefore looking for evidence work? Why stop at Evolution? What about Gravity? How about Intelligent Falling?

Understanding how a disease mutates and developing vaccines requires understanding the evolution of bacteria, viruses, etc. Adaptation, insertions, and gene mutations and the like are not evolution – they are just basic mechanisms of change. They don't necessarily, and rarely if ever lead to a more "evolved" organism. That's the problem. Evolution can't really claim the benefits of this science because evolutionary theory is not really involved. In fact, creationists contend that viral insertion and adaptation are evidence of design. But this is typical of evolutionary thinking – it tries to claims that all of science falls within the evolutionary rubric, but really, it is saying "these things are true (which they are), so evolution is true." Not so.Whoa, is that a FACT? I would challenge that… do you have your sources? Here you go, Lonnie, from Gallup 2006OK, evolution is testable, and is tested constantly through the scientific method. You see, this is the problem. You can't test evolution. You can test natural selection (which is not evolution). You can test mutation, adaptation, even speciation, but none of these are evolution. And all of these mechanisms also fit into the creation model. In fact, as a model for prediction, I would say that evolution has failed. My favorite evolutionary conclusions are things like vestigial organs and junk DNA, the latter of which is proving to have lots of functionality. Now, evolutionists may consider these arguments against evolution as mere creationist canards, but I do think that they have some merit, and show that evolution may be hindering, not helping science. I discussed this previously in Evolution contributes nothing to medicine. Evolution may have happened, but you can't witness it. You can only look at the fragmentary fossil record to see if it did, and unfortunately, the fossil record is full of gaps, and inconclusive, if not contradictory to evolution.Someone please explain to me how Intelligent Design is testable? This argument has been going around in circles for a while now, so you'll have to bounce back and forth between the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis on one hand, and Talk Origins and The Pandas Thumb on the other. While you're at it, you can explore the differences between ID and creationism, as well as analyses of the Dover decision. Have fun with those guys, you'll soon be sitting with your rifle in the library window.

The creationist model argues that similar viruses inserted similar genes in similar locations in similar species' DNA? I would be very interested in hearing such an arguement. Similarly, evolution is change. The changes are small in the short term and larger over longer periods of time. I fail to see what mechanism prevents these changes from leading to the diversity of life on our world. I would not know what you mean by a more evolved organism. Bacteria is just as 'evolved' as people. I would also wonder how viruses are evidence of design, unless the designer is trying to kill its creations or within the Christian model, released them as punishment of sin. So-called junk DNA, non-coding, can provide clues to our past. The same goes for vestigal organs. The rest of your arguement seems to argue against historical science. By this understanding, we could not form theories about the big bang despite evidence such as the microwave background radiation as we did not directly observe the initial event! I do not mean to be rude, but I truly do not understand some of these strange ideas.

IE, the problem is that we all agree that "change" happens, but not "macroevolution" – that is, creationists argue that change happens within a kind, but that these quantum leaps that evolutionists want to group in with normal variation just don't happen, and never did.

Evolutionists think junk DNA (and "vestigial organs") are there because they are leftover from evolution, and probably unused. Creationists posit that all of these things, except for minor variations and mutations, are there for a designed purpose. Just because I can live without an arm doesn't mean it's vestigial. Just because I can live without an appendix doesn't make it so either. As it turns out, creationists are right in assumign that the appendix has a function. Same w/ "junk" DNA. See Junk DNA: Evolutionary Discards or God's Tools? Regarding the design of viruses, they may be toxic due to nature gone awry – they actually had/have a beneficial function. See Did God make pathogenic viruses? Regarding historical science, I'd say historical evidence fails to support evolution, but does support the creation and noahic flood models.

None of these positions have been taken by any biologists that I have heard or read. Vestigal organs and "junk" DNA are used but not in same manner as in their ancestors. Wings can be adapted for swimming or balancing even after they no longer allow flight. Junk DNA does not "code", though it may have in the past. Certainly they can serve other purposes. On macro-evolution, what prevents it? This arguement seems to say that you can remodel the kitchen but not add a story. On the viruses, I meant that a comparison of human and ape genes indicate that viruses inserted their code in similar locations. To borrow from a creationists critique, the probability of this happening once in seperate species is enormous while the chances of such occurring so many times is incredible. Here is blog post on the subject. The evolutionary explanation is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, so the groups have the same insertion. What is the creationist explanation?

None of these positions have been taken by any biologists that I have heard or read. What biologists have you heard or read?Wings can be adapted for swimming or balancing even after they no longer allow flight. What fossil evidence indicates that a penguin wing is related by a physical mechanism and a physical history to an ostrich wing?On macro-evolution, what prevents it? You need to decide on what causes it first (random mutation and natural selection?), which would open the door to testing and falsification. Note that millions of organisms unfold and evolve every single day, what causes that? What prevents them from unfolding by a supposed happenstance into disparate life forms instead of the same forms over and over again? (If the fossil evidence is interpreted in some ways they have been doing the same thing in the same way for millions of years.) Note that instead of looking at old bones and writing little stories about how things must have been we can observe organisms unfolding empirically, it seems to me that you should be trying to answer what causes them to unfold the way that they do first before focusing on supposed happenstances of adaptation that cannot be observed based on stories which are often based on little more than bits of bone in stone.

Why stop at Evolution? What about Gravity? How about Intelligent Falling? Isn't it ironic that half-wits would try to take the work of that Christian mystic Newton who firmly believed in trying to fuse the "two Books" and pretend that it has something to do with their false and absurd philosophy of Naturalism. It is likely that if their way of conflating science with supposed notions about the "natural" was followed then we'd probably still be arguing about objects falling just because it is their "nature" to do so. I.e., that's the natural answer. For what is an invisible force like "gravity" that we can't see? And according to the mathematician Newton this invisible thing applies to the moon and the planets, how could Newton make such a leap? Gravity may as well be a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Newton is a crazy Christian, mathematics is not science (<—a Panda's Thumb original, that!) etc.etc… As long as you're linking, here are some questions about the "just like gravity" association. It would seem that those who have no falsifiable mathematical theory are left with arguments of association. Do physicists argue this way? E.g., "If someone could show that I cannot imagine some way of this getting here, then my way of imagining history would absolutely break down. Besides, why would God let this thing be here the way it is, anyway? So there's more evidence for my theory about it." Biologists do, given that most are Darwinists, note that this can be proven from their texts. It seems that any critic of Darwinism finds themselves having to say that Darwinists really have written the inane arguments that they refer to. E.g.

The viewpoint of Coyne et al. (1988) is one in which past events are argued to explain, in a causal sense, the world around us. Such explanations cannot be verified or tested, and the only biological observations they require are that variation and differential reproduction occur. [I.e., "Things change or somethin'."] This is not a caricature, as a reading of Coyne et al. will verify.

Hello, mynym. One has to enjoy a blog with anti-Nietzsche in the subtitle. My college education is basic on the issue, a couple of biology courses. I have read some of Dawkin's works along with Carl Zimmer, S. J. Gould, Daniel Dennett, Robert Pennock, and a few other odds and ends that I cannot recall at this time. Being a history major, I also enjoyed Edward Larson's works. On the wing, I would not know. I guess you could attempt to trace them back to earlier ancestors, but I am not sure if a common ancestor between the two have been found. What causes evolution? A host of things play a role. Mutation and natural selection are popular, though obviously a series of other events play parts. Recombination of genes, sexual selection, various environmental factors, etc. As has already been debated to death, we see small changes all the time, so is there good reason to belive they cannot lead to big changes. Also, as noted in earlier, genetic studies provide evidence. Viral insertions appear in human and ape genes, which are readily explained by common ancestory but present problems if the two species were specially created seperately (unless God just wanted them to appear similar in that regard).

Your main point seems to be far from the theory of gravity, i.e. statements made in mathematical language representing information that can be observed and verified empirically, in the formations of things. E.g. these bits of text represent hypothetical goo that can comport itself to any empirical fact that can possibly be observed: "A host of things play a role. …a series of other events play parts. …various environmental factors, etc." I think we should begin with the way that things are currently unfolding and develope theories based on empirical facts, rather than engaging in the Darwinian forms of hypothetical goo that so often rely on negative theology. (Yet then Darwinists wonder why their inane arguments are countered by theologians and the religious!)…readily explained by common ancestory but present problems if the two species were specially created seperately (unless God just wanted them to appear similar in that regard). They'd be readily explained by aliens known by the ancients as the Nephilim breaking down some species and building others by genetic engineering, too. That would be quite an ancestral story and yet another "explanation" about ancestry, with about the same amount of current empirical evidence that supports Darwinism. Your main point seems to be this:As has already been debated to death, we see small changes all the time, so…there [is no] good reason to belive they cannot lead to big changes. Irrational Entity, given that you do not seem to have a rationale for rationality I don't know that you know what a good reason is or is not…but at least your name is appropriate. A reason to believe that a genome cannot be stretched to bring about any form that you may concieve of is intelligence, whether good or evil. Take some empirical facts that we can observe instead of speculation about the past, intelligent selection as currently applied to breeding over hundreds of years reveals that the same basic form is typically there. It is often the form that any babe can recognize, as wisdom comes from the mouths of babes and so on. A lot of drool seems to come out too, yet I meander. Noam Chomsky has noted that patterns of language seem to have been programmed into us and this is the same thing that we use to recognize life forms which seem to be programmed to maintain their form…within reason, of course. In contrast to evidence that can be observed with respect to intelligent selection and what small changes can or cannot seem to build up to, the evidence that "natural selection" has any vast powers to accomplish something more than intelligent selection if only it is given vast amounts of time cannot be observed or verified. You communicate with language that has so many layers of negative assertions in it that it is almost contradictory that there is "no reason to believe" that natural selection "cannot" accumulate small changes and "no reason" to assume that small changes do not contain the capacity to bring about all Life? No reason it cannot..etc. That's the language of a smothered mind that cannot think. But very well, I probably still know what you cannot say, with no reason. Given your position, how soon will someone begin the process of accumulating some small changes in a group of organisms by intelligent selection (which if anything, will greatly speed along supposed "natural selections") to build new forms of organisms? Perhaps they will use the theory of natural selection to predict the trajectory of adaptations that they can use to reach the new formation, about as certain as a physicist uses the theory of gravity to track the trajectory of objects? After all, Darwinism is about as sure as gravity these days. Funny how old that argument is, I suppose it has always been necessary for the charlatans of a pseudo-science to make an argument of association about science. God knows that they do not have their own argument encoded in the language of mathematics and verified with empirical facts.

New forms of organisms? That can be done with dog breeding or in the longer term, the domestication of wolves. If you mean very different forms, such as getting a fish to grow legs, that I would not know. Breeding rate would probably play a role, so bacteria would probably be a better place to start, though creationists would usually just argue that they are "still bacteria." Also, we should not rely too heavily on natural selection at the expense of other factors, like sexual selection, genetic mutation, etc. In such areas I doubt that we have enough information to predict those outcomes outside of a very general degree. On viral insertions, I think there is better evidence for natural insertion than Nephilim altering human, ape, and all of life's genetic codes. We can observe insertions and know that those insertions are passed on to the ancestors. A natural arguement for the great similarities of these insertions makes more sense than aliens/demons altering DNA so as to make humans appear related by varying degrees to apes.

Wow This is Daniel Read from the article and those are some harsh words. The artical really presints us badly. We never interupted, in fact Mr.Frisby told me he didnt even hear the comments made. The fact of the matter is anyone would not be happy if they had to sitt through hours of learning about somthing you dont belive. Also it is stuff I have heard befor. My father is a ex-biology teacher and evolutionist. My best friend is a athiest and evolutionist. I was not tring to be disrespectfull but bring up a alternitive that gives hope and love. Jesus Christ.

I was not tring to be disrespectfull but bring up a alternitive that gives hope and love. Jesus Christ. Creationism brings hope? In a science class, we need to be looking for truth. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the gospel and creationism, but I think the correct reason to present the alternative is for intellectual integrity, not bringing religious hope. But thanks for the input. So you weren't rudely interrupting, or making sarcastic comments to the teacher? And when you brought such issue up, were you intellectually ignored or told that you weren't talking science but faith, or shut down in some other manner?

They'd be readily explained by aliens known by the ancients as the Nephilim breaking down some species and building others by genetic engineering, too. Mynym, are you actually referring to some theology that you or someone believes about the Nephilim, or are you making a point with a hyperbole?

Seeker, linking Nephilim with the Ancient astronaut theory is basic to those know of the anomalies of archeology. My personal favorite is the Antikythera mechanism. So many things about the past just don't fit nice little tales moderns themselves to assure themselves of their superiority over those "primative goat herders" who worshiped the "sky god." Quote: "New forms of organisms? That can be done with dog breeding or in the longer term, the domestication of wolves." Which a process of ID. Thank you. Quote: "Breeding rate would probably play a role, so bacteria would probably be a better place to start, though creationists would usually just argue that they are 'still bacteria.'" This makes no sense. Humans supposedly shared common ancestry with an ape ancestor about 1 million years ago. Now is we assume average generational rate of about 10 years across the transition in the line from alleged ancestor to modern humans we get 100,000 generations. Bacteria reproduce at a rate of about 20 minutes per generation which means we can easily reach 100,000 generatons in 3.8 years. Are you saying the amount information needed to produce a human brain from an primative ape's brain is less than which required to produce a new strain of bacteria? The only way which one could explain this observation is to claim that human gametes are more than 263,157 times better at producing novel information and structures than that of a bacteria colony. Question: Is it rational to believe breeding rate plays such an important role given the very history that the Darwinist allege? No, it makes no sense at all. Quote: "Also, we should not rely too heavily on natural selection at the expense of other factors, like sexual selection, genetic mutation, etc. In such areas I doubt that we have enough information to predict those outcomes outside of a very general degree." In other words you don't actually know but instead have faith that some mystical composition of these seemly powerless mechanisms result in what we actually observe i.e. things which give every appearance of being designed for a purpose. An Evolutionists is like a poor man who believes that by counting the small number pennies under his couch he will in fact devine the machanism which explains th$ Donald(tm). He imgaines his accounting of the mere pennies under the cushion of his couch is in fact the basis for all the wealth through time and by counting yet one more time the pathway to wonders of wealth will be reveiled and he too will enjoy the "godlike" wealth and power of th$ Donald ™ and so he keeps counting and counting and examing every curve and impression of the pennies. Day after Day, Year after Year, till his body actually starts to comsume itself and the eyes bludge and muscles waste. Where where there was once a man there is now a golem-like creature constantly caressing his "precious." Once the man is consumed by his worship of the creation instead of the Creator he starts lashing out at anyone he thinks puts anything above Mommy Nature and starts talking about how it would be wonderful if Mommy Nature would kill 90% of the infidels who don't worship Mommy as he does. Quote: "We can observe insertions and know that those insertions are passed on to the ancestors." You mean from the ancestors. The ancestors are so we don't pass anything to them. Quote: "A natural arguement for the great similarities of these insertions makes more sense than aliens/demons altering DNA so as to make humans appear related by varying degrees to apes." Why? Because you want to believe that? Humans seem to enjoy varying degrees of dog types, cat types, cars types. One can imagine anything number of things that fit with "similarities of insertions" so to say "nature makes more sense" is an argument from personal preferance. Personal preferance is the entire basis of Evolutionary thought i.e. a theory that justifies any manifestation of sexual desires which one wish to enage. This of course is predicted by Evolution which says that if the development of a certain theory helps the population reproduce better by eliminated various sexual taboos. In short, Evolution Biology is a result of sexual selection and competition so once Evolution is no longer sexy, people won't buy it.

Quote: "They are being taught science not religion, and they are intent on denying the education of all students by their disruption and lack of respect." This assumes that "science" is not in fact religion. But of course "science" is religion otherwise why the outrage at the questions as if science class is holy liturgy or the Biology lecture is a sermon to observed in silent reverance? Ask yourself if this hard been a far far more practical algebra class would this even be a story? For LA, it would a typical day but since the HOLY DOGMAS of SCIENCE where challenged so we have a NEWS story. Quote: "If I were a teacher in these classes I send the offending students out of class into detention." Should we burn them at the strake while are at it? Maybe you would like similiar treatment if some students questioned Global Warming, or Overpopulation, or Avain Flu, or the ridiculus food pyramid crap you get in government school these days. Maybe if you were a teacher in the 1930s you would banned all that nonsense about continental drift from your lectures as well. Nice to the protectors of science are as opened minded as they were with Galileo.

Particle accelerators also produce ID experiments, but we seem to be able to take that data and apply it to the world outside the lab. No, new strains of bacteria can emerge, but then the discussion usually bogs down into how much change. Nylon eating bacteria provides a goode example of how this works out. You are correct about the wording; I meant progeny. I would be interested to know what these many theories are that explain the insertions without relying on common ancestory.

It's extremely funny how religionists, unable to understand or see the world in terms other than unthinking dogmas, attempt to defame science as a "religion" or "faith" and thus bring it into their own sphere of superstitious cant. Science is the opposite of religion because it depends on reason and the scientific method. It's true that certain unthinking individuals (ie, crypto-relgionists) may, at times, act as if it were a religion, but that is, once again, the act opposite of science. The hallmark of science is skepticism not faith. The next time you need some antibiotics, go to a faith healer.

Quote: "It's extremely funny how religionists, unable to understand or see the world in terms other than unthinking dogmas, attempt to defame science as a "religion" or "faith" and thus bring it into their own sphere of superstitious cant." How do you know I see the world through "unthinking dogmas" unless you think that world is already a certain way i.e. entirely materialistic in nature? Thus anyone who disagrees with that assessment must be unthinking and you can dismiss their arguments apriori as being superstitious or believes resulting from fear of the unknown to which you claim to know apriori i.e. knowlegde thoughout thinking or "knowlegde" arrived at by chance happening or superstitious belief in the highest sense. Quote: "Science is the opposite of religion because it depends on reason and the scientific method." Pure Poppycock. Why do you insist in defining "Science" in terms of opposition if your aim is an honest seeking of truth? By defining science in terms of opposition you have by definition made it a sectarian calling which a hallmark of religion. You are correct to point out that science depends on human reason and the utility of methods for its process but is religion also not defined by the very same? Quote: "It's true that certain unthinking individuals (ie, crypto-relgionists) may, at times, act as if it were a religion, but that is, once again, the act opposite of science." At times! At Times! That is the most defining characteristic of the practice most people view science as done the hopes of improving the human condition which is the very aim of human religion. Quote: "The hallmark of science is skepticism not faith." Ah yes…skepticism or rather personal incredulity based on the politics of power is in fact the hallmark of science. Galileo, the Wright Brothers, Einstien, Watson and Crick, etc.. can all tell us about virtues of personal incredulity or "skepticism." True Discovery proceeds inspite of the skepticism not because of it. Every Discovery was opposed the skeptics of the time and skeptics have 100% failure rate of detecting true novel discovery. Skpeticism is irrational bigotry based on the fear of losing power aka superstition. Quote: "The next time you need some antibiotics, go to a faith healer." Louis has never met a non-sequitor he hasn't liked.

Quote: "No, new strains of bacteria can emerge, but then the discussion usually bogs down into how much change. Nylon eating bacteria provides a goode example of how this works out." What happens to those bacteria when the original strain is reintroduced? Also regarding Nylon eating bacteria do you exactly what changes cause the nylon digestion ability and a estimate of the information needed to produce the change versus Champ ancestor to Modern Human? If you knew that then you would know that Nylon eating bacteria are amount as relevant to evolution as counting cushion pennies is to explaining George Soros' exchange rate speculating techniques. Quote: "I would be interested to know what these many theories are that explain the insertions without relying on common ancestory." What is so hard to explain? It is just repeated coded. There are hundreds for ways for horizontal gene tranfer to occur. What exactly do these insertions mean for common ancestory? What does common ancestory mean anyway? The intelligently designed glow mice have common ancestory and retro virus insertions as that is basic in genetic engineering. How does one falisify the idea of Common Descent without making a ridiculous test that would destroy any known replication mechanism? I personally don't care about the issue of Common Descent. I just don't see the how the evidence given makes Common Descent the only possible position.

On the bacteria, genetic variations caused it to be able to eat nylon. This development shows that old systems can be altered for different purposes by natural means. In this instance, common ancestry means that humans and apes both descended from the same species. That the code is repeated is precisely what provides good evidence that this occurred. There are thousands of viral insertions in our genes and these match several different species of apes. They also match our understanding of the fossil record with species that branched off earlier having more differences relative to humans than species that branched of later. However, they all have similar insertions in similar locations. This evidence matches well with evolutionary theory. Special creation would have to argue along the lines of God creating these species with the appearance of similar insertions, or they could show a mechanism by which several thousands of insertions happen in similar locations in similar species with the degree of variance found in the fossil record. Are there any other theories?

Quote: "On the bacteria, genetic variations caused it to be able to eat nylon. This development shows that old systems can be altered for different purposes by natural means." Arghh, I'm so tired of this. Do you think I have not read the material on this? Do you think that I don't the alteration of the system is the loss information but that allows the degration other substrates too. This is stupid, you are using evidence of devolution to prove evolution. The Nylon Eating now has less ability to discriminate between materials it breaks down which a loss of functionality resulting selective cost not benefit. Quote: "In this instance, common ancestry means that humans and apes both descended from the same species." But what does that mean? Quote: "That the code is repeated is precisely what provides good evidence that this occurred. There are thousands of viral insertions in our genes and these match several different species of apes." Maybe or maybe not. GM Tomatoes have repeated code but thats not evidence that tomatoes evolved from tuned. Can't viral insertions occur when viruses are used as vectors in recombinant programming? Quote: "They also match our understanding of the fossil record with species that branched off earlier having more differences relative to humans than species that branched of later. However, they all have similar insertions in similar locations." Holy circular reasoning Batman! You know they branched off earlier because the apes share an early common ancestor as evidenced by the fact have more genetic difference which proves they share common descent. Maybe all Apes were all part of the same genetic engineering program resulting in progressive modifcation of the genome meaning a large relative genetic difference between what there then the project started and when the project ended. Duh….like almost all engineering projects. Quote: "This evidence matches well with evolutionary theory." No it doesn't. Nothing in this evidence proves the modification was by RM+NS, SS, and Genetic Drift. The only thing you know is that there are repeated bits of code among separated primate species leading progressively to an organism which has the ability to observe and know that those facts. This screams Intelligent Design not directionless evolution. Quote: Special creation would have to argue along the lines of God creating these species with the appearance of similar insertions. No ,not with the appearance of repeated insertions but many of the exactly same insertion because it makes perfect sense to use an already existing template and progressively modify rather than reinvent the genetic wheel for human from the begining. Repeat Insertions are one of the best evidence of a common design template. Quote: "they could show a mechanism by which several thousands of insertions happen in similar locations in similar species with the degree of variance found in the fossil record. Are there any other theories?" Yes, such a mechanism is know as recombinant programming using semi-biological (viral) vectors. We humans use it all the time to produce GM food. Why don't you actually learn something about the methods biological intelligent designing before you unthinking conclude the evidence is pointing towards random "chance" evolution. Intelligent Design is the future because we are becoming intelligent designers ourselves so the idea will no longer appear foreign or unimaginable.

I think the nylon bacteria has been discussed by creationists here. They include many challenges to the “evolution” claim. I have not seen a creationist response to the similar insertion site, but could it be that the virus looks for a certain uncommon or unique insertion site, so when both species were infected, they got the same mutation? I’d have to look more closely at the evidence. Do all humans and apes have this, or only a subset? Is it in the gametes, or environmental?

Yes, I read AiG, ICR, and Reasons to understand where creationists come from and their arguements. I find that puzzling as that was one of the big pieces of genetic evidence that my intro to biology professor discussed. Though to be a bit of a wag, I am sure someone somewhere will figure a way around it, hopefully without relying on demonic intervention.Here is an entry from a blog that explains this stuff for we lowly humanities students. I read of some virus types that seek out certain areas, but these seem to be the exception, the number would argue against that, and some viruses might be reconstructed to see if they do seek out such locations. You could argue along Septeus7's lines that the viral genes helped humans, therefore God created them that way. A counter-arguement would wonder why God required viruses to help humans/apes function and why their variance falls along lines matching evolutionary understanding of the fossil record. In any event, I think this is an amazing discovery whatever you consider it evidence for or against.

A natural arguement for the great similarities of these insertions makes more sense than aliens/demons altering DNA so as to make humans appear related by varying degrees to apes. The aliens/demons would be just as natural if they came into Nature as we know it to guide history, perform little experiments, or to engage in genetic engineering that relies on viruses to break down the cell enough to allow the insertion of foreign genes into the host genome.Mynym, are you actually referring to some theology that you or someone believes about the Nephilim, or are you making a point with a hyperbole? I don’t know enough to do anything but note that the past is shrouded in mystery. Sometimes it is fun to make a hyperbolic point and see if it can take better shape. None of my main points that I do know something about seem to have been answered, some of the implications drawn from them are just as telling as Darwinists’ interpretations of genetics.Here is an entry from a blog that explains this stuff for we lowly humanities students. Unfortunately, this is from Zimmer, a fellow who believes the old gill slit canard and so on, see At the Waters Edge, but quote:…now I must write about the endogenous retroviruses in chimpanzees, macaques, and other primates. It turns out that most of the viruses we carry can also be found in these other species. Our retroviruses can be grouped into families. They carry the same families. That’s because viruses often do not cross the species barrier, yet sometimes they do. Thus evidence of any specific evidence of relationships among species that are drawn from viruses is clouded and uncertain, except for those ready to see relationships that they already believe are there. If you and I happened to have the same virus at some point, would that mean that our family relationships were closer, farther apart, or would such evidence be largely irrelevant to the issue of how close our familial relationship is? Darwinists have a habit of seeing evidence of “patterns” in things, relationships that they want to see. E.g., the gill slit canard. That may be the case here as well, the relationships that they see are “already established” by other studies and so they come to viruses and see what they already know. Interesting to note, would the absence of viral relationships be counted as evidence against “evolution”? I put the term evolution in quotes because I have seen evolutionists use it to mean anything from all change that has ever taken place in the Cosmos to a change in the size of the beaks of some birds on an island. I believe in evolution as a vast unfolding of events, but most of it proceeds by orderly law just as many biologists have pointed out. He goes on:Our retroviruses usually appear in the same position in the genome, no matter whose genome you look at. Many of theirs are in the same place. That’s no evidence of a relational timeline. I.e., if you and I both had the same type of virus (given the species barrier humans tend to get the same type, after all, just as all types of organisms and forms of life tend to get viruses that are typical to them) and passed the evidence of it on to our kids would that be evidence of our close familial relationship over time?These are all the sorts of evidence you’d expect if retroviruses had been carried down from distant primate ancestors. That’s not verification of an actual prediction (just like gravity or somethin’). That’s the same old explanation of what was already expected to be the case because of “other studies” which are probably themselves more explanations of what is already assumed to be the case. It is assumed because that is what is “natural.” I suppose that questioning all these assumptions is unnatural, yet I do it anyway. Ask this question, what evidence (viral or not) would falsify the original assumption of relationship? At any rate it seems a bit loose, even for Darwinists, to argue that similar types of organisms have similar types of viruses and this is evidence that organisms that have had similar viruses have had a historical relationship. HIV began in monkeys, hypothetically, and now humans have it. What family relationship would later scientists be justified in seeing based on the evidence of both monkeys and humans having evidence of HIV in their genome? Would they say that monkeys are ancestral to humans or that humans are ancestral to monkeys given the similarity of the virus? I guess they’d have to go with the hypothesis “matching evolutionary understanding of the fossil record” there, which would further “explain” what they already had decided that they knew. Too bad they wouldn’t not be verifying empirically anything that they predicted though, just more “explaining.” Like Darwinists, they would have a lot of explaining to do. Wouldn’t it be ironic for those with the urge to merge to treat the species barrier as inviolate when it comes to viruses to set up supposed historical/ancestral relationships that viruses could not cross, given that they try to violate any notion of “barriers” between forms in anyway that they can “imagine” otherwise? Imagination, thus the nonexistent gill-slits and so on… It seems to me that the main problem is that one cannot trust Darwinists given their neurotic psychological dynamics and history of charlatanism. But if you want to be taken in by them and overwhelmed by the supposed evidence of their own imagination then so be it. I should note, given that you seem to be taken in by charlatans, that this is all predicated on knowing very little. I include my own writings in that. We don’t know and a charlatan is interested in getting you to believe that we know more than we do. Here’s a simple question, what disease has gene therapy cured? Or, how many times has it been reported that the human genome has been mapped?

…I think this is an amazing discovery whatever you consider it evidence for or against. Demonic intervention would be amazing…but no, it is not really that amazing to find that similar types of organisms have similar viruses. It's rather like other genetic evidence that Darwinists use, it's as if they believe that the information that organisms hold in storage should be widely divergent from the formation of their form. But ask yourself this, what if it was? Do you really believe that Darwinists would not have another "explanation"? Once the initial standard of evidence for a theory is set at this: "If I can imagine a way of this coming to be in a way that I call natural, then that can serve as evidence for my theory. So if someone can show that I cannot imagine things, then my theory absolutely breaks down." then there is no way around the hypothetical goo. If you try, you will only be smothered, thus the iconoclastic and sarcastic tone of the biologists throughout history that have disagreed with Darwinism and falsified* it based on the empirical evidence. *In so much as it is ever defined in the first place, given their psychological dynamics those with the urge to merge are not big on establishing a well-formed definition that can be verified, don't you know. Just remember, it's all "just like" gravity or somethin'!

However, the similar placement of the viral insertions are what provides the best evidence, not just the similar insertions. That is the critical point along with the variations matching evolutionary development in the fossil record. What would falsify it? A very large difference in their genetic code. If the difference is too big to be accounted for by mutation, then you have strong evidence of a similar species devloping without common ancestory to a species with simlar appearances. Considering the available technology and studies, I hope that nobody has received gene therapy to cure a major illness. I doubt we are anywhere near ready to use such procedures safely. On mapping, I do not know what you mean exactly. We have mapped the earth, but we require ever more detailed maps. As for the last section, evolution seems quite reasonable to me, in my very non-professional studies. I see various ways that it could be falsified, but none of them have been shown.

A very large difference in their genetic code. If the difference is too big to be accounted for by mutation, then you have strong evidence of a similar species devloping without common ancestory to a species with simlar appearances. But this already assumes that similarity = relatedness, i.e. it is circular. And even if they were significantly different, what's to keep you from concluding that even a small overlap is proof of relatedness, given the magic wand of "extensive periods of time"? Regarding falsification, I have this to say: 1. even among evolutionists there are varying theories of evolution, because the data is contradictory or incomplete 2. See my previous post on the statistical impossibility 3. Irreducible complexity 4. Contradictions in the fossil record The latter do exist, but of course, evolutionists debate that. Because we can not actually do an experiment to prove evolution, we can only look at the historical evidence, and see how well our model (evolution or creation) fits the known facts and predicts the future facts that we discover. There are many significant challenges to the evolution model in the geological records, in physics, in biology. It's just that the priests of science don't want to confuse you with these facts.

The relatedness is extrapolation from evidence. Genetic tests can determine family or ethnicity by similarity. To extend the system, testing dogs can roughly determine how soon various branches formed. Tests between species is a continuation of these readily observable processes. We can also turn to fossil evidence to find when various species emerged and compare this record to genes. Almost any theory has various parts, the big bang theory has several variants, but the available evidence points toward our universe expanding from a small point billions of years ago. What is an irreducible complex system that cannot have emerged via evolution? So far none of the proposed systems have seemed convincing. And those priests of evolution would argue that Lubenow totally misrepresents their findings and disagreements between evolutionists as evidence against evolutionary theory rather than debate over various theories within evolution.

Quote: "What would falsify it? A very large difference in their genetic code. If the difference is too big to be accounted for by mutation, then you have strong evidence of a similar species devloping without common ancestory to a species with simlar appearances." That doesn't make any sense to me. A mutation is a change of heterocyclic base and heterocyclic bases that make up the structure genetic code so how exactly does one make a genetic differences too big for change seeing at any changing of genetic code is by definition mutation unless one actually sees the process of genetic engineering using something like a DNA gun? So the only way, according to Irrational Entity, to disprove Common Ancestry is to show that the structural changes from ape ancestor to modern human had nothing to with genetic change. Sir, your handle does you justice. On a side note, I would like to say that much of Common Ancestry makes sense as I would think that modifying within an existing body plan (phyla) would make more sense than rebuilding a body plan everytime you wanted to make changes or evovle something. Maybe there was a combination of many methods with some species being created as original constructions and others progressive modified in a common ancestral line. This happened so long ago and is buried by so much crap its all pretty much speculation as far the science goes. At least, ID is free to consider ideas outside the Neo-Darwinian paradigm. Lastly, I would to say that I think the means of modification was quite different from Neo-Darwinian mechanisms which don't really work unless you want to believe they work regardless of evidence. I think the idea of directed modification and alteration needs to explored more within the ID circles. Basically, I want completely leave the Neo-Darwiniam paradigm and use a genetic engineering and construction framework do model just how a Designer could take X, Y, Z biological components and building X organism versus taking A, B, C components and building X-like organism. I think this would be wonderfully interesting research. I don't understand how Irrational can be opposed to developing such a science of ID and checking to see if we can apply these principles to interpret fossils, DNA comparisions, etc…

I would not say the only way. If you found a one and a half billion year old boned fish fossil, that would seem to disprove the current theory. I am not sure what you mean by the ape ancestry remark. Why would I be opposed to ID experiments? You do not have to convince me. My studies of biology are limited by my knowledge of the field, so I am dependant on "priests" to navitage such waters. I could be of more help in talking about religious and social groups in American history, which is where my interest in evolution, creationism, and ID really began.

That is the critical point along with the variations matching evolutionary development in the fossil record. They are doing the same thing with the fossil record that they do with genetic evidence, reading patterns into it based on "explanations" that they already believe must be true because they are what they consider natural. This is what comports with their philosophy, which is why Darwinists so often think that technology is somehow unnatural and fall into the myth of the Noble Savage and so on and so forth. The latest example is this fellow Pianka who believes thoroughly in the Darwinian creation myth and philosophically comes to believe all the usual patterns. He's the one who can't seem to hide a hope that 90% of humanity will be wiped out by ebola. Isn't it ironic that Darwinists associate and link the Darwinian creation myth with anything from microwaves to virtually all of modern medicine? (That's the textboook example.) Usually, they like to pretend that their creation myth is somehow linked to technology and human progress, when in fact it is not. Not unless you consider the Pianka's of the world, the eugenics movement, the Nazis, etc., "progress." But anyway, it seems you did not answer my question. Given that the HIV virus has crossed apparently crossed the species barrier from modern monkeys to modern humans, how ought later scientists to "interpret" the genetic evidence that this will leave when it comes to their familial relationship over time? It is interesting to note that when it comes to fossils Darwinists are often interpreting bits of bone in stone that they have not even seen because usually there is no way to get access to it. Again, there's really no way around the standard of hypothetical goo that they set for themselves anyway: "If I can imagine a sequence of events that I call natural, then my imagination counts as valid evidence that that's the way it happened. Technology is not natural, therefore this is not designed and I must imagine a way. See, I can imagine it happening another way by happenstance, which is overwhelming evidence! Besides, technology and science will collapse if my way of imagining the past is not adhered to…although something still doesn't seem natural about technology, that's like raping Mommy Nature or somethin'. But as long as it is good, then Darwinism is responsible for it." And so on. The contradictions and illogic is usually the same, this can be proven from their own texts. E.g., the latest example is Pianka.I could be of more help in talking about religious and social groups in American history, which is where my interest in evolution, creationism, and ID really began. Why do you suppose that so many of Darwin's defenders were theologians, Christians or apostates of the same sort who then maintained the same assumptions in their negative theologies? Do you blame the positive theologians that answer them to this day or try to argue that negative theology ought to be allowed but positive must be exluded based on the increasingly hackneyed notion of "separation of church and state"? What about the way that the professionalization of science in America and the general acceptance of Darwinism happen coincide in history? Many people seem to think that science has a vast history of correcting itself and so if those who are systematically excluded from the scientific forum and journals are really correct, then they will naturally be given a forum eventually and then their ideas will take over just like other ideas have been accepted and rejected in the past. And the method and the process will all happen from within the "scientific community" itself, given the notion that science is self-correcting and so on. But given the historical fact of professionalization of science that causes people to shift their interest from the evidence to maintaining a career in science happening about the same time as the general acceptance of Darwinism based on more than a few frauds and arguments known to be false, is it true that science/scientists will necessarily correct themselves?

Many diseases mutate and jump species; the concerns over bird flu emerges from this possibility. The change in HIV would be of interest if HIV were inserted into our genes and passed on to the next generation. I would guess that an experiment would need to determine if the virus seeks out a certain location in the genome to insert itself, if the insertion is relatively random and inserted itself in a different location in the human genetic code, then that would match the current theory of evolution. If these many viruses did not insert themselves randomly throughout the human/ape genes, then such similarities do not provide evidence for common ancestry. Interestingly, some argue that a HIV insertion in chimp genes explains why they handle the disease better than their human cousins. I am not entirely sure that I agree with your premise. I have read various monographs and biographies in which various more traditional theologians and like-minded scientists eventually came to the conclusion that evolution was real and their theology must adapt to describe this reality. I do not know what you mean regarding positive theology and church/state issues. Are they mutually exclusive? While evolutionary theory developed as science became a career, this arguement seems weak to me. Before Hubble's measurements, the idea of an expanding universe with billions of galaxies was the odd one out, but evidence eventually convinced many. One of Einstein's last writings spoke glowingly of a work that attacked what became plate tectonics, yet a few decades later that theory was in every school's geology textbook. The field seems to adjust well enough. I would not be stunned if a few steady-staters still exist in scientific circles, but their theory has been replaced by one that most consider far more convincing. Perhaps this situation is the result of generational shifts? In any event, I view creationism/ID as being simlar to steady-state, which is to say that it is the earlier theory that has since become a minority opinion as a better theory was developed and tested. Of course, I also consider evolution to be based on far more than a few frauds and false arguements.